Twenty

Second Annual Willem C. Vis

International Commercial Arbitration
Moot

Analysis of the Problem

For use of the Arbitrators

Organiszed by:
Association for the organisation and promotion of the
Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot

And

Twelfth Annual
Willem C. Vis (East)
International Commercial Arbitration Moot
Hong Kong
Organized by:
Vis East Moot Foundation Limited

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

Introduction
If you do not already have a copy of the Problem, it is available on the Vis Moot web
site, https://vismoot.pace.edu/site/22nd-vis-moot. If you downloaded the Problem during October
you will need to download the revised version issued at the beginning of November including
Procedural Order .2 and subsequent comments.
This analysis of the Problem is primarily for the use of arbitrators. Arbitrators who may be
associated with a team in the Moot are strongly urged not to communicate any of the ideas
contained in this analysis to their teams before the submission of the Memorandum for
RESPONDENT.
The analysis will be sent to all teams after all Memoranda for RESPONDENT have been
submitted. Many of the team coaches/professors participate as arbitrators in the Moot and
therefore receive this analysis. It only seems fair that all teams should have the analysis of the
problem for the oral arguments. If the analysis contains ideas teams had not thought of before,
the respective teams will still have to turn those ideas into convincing arguments to support the
position they are taking. For that reason the analysis often does not more than merely flagging
the issue without mentioning the arguments against or for a certain position or containing a full
analysis of the problem.
All arbitrators should be aware that the legal analysis contained herein may not be the only way
the Problem can be analyzed. It may not even be the best way that one or more of the issues can
be analyzed. The amount of issues that arise out of the fact situation makes it necessary for the
teams to take a decision which of the issues they emphasize in their submissions and oral
presentations. Arbitrators should keep in mind that the teams background might influence its
approach to the Problem and its analysis. In addition, the decision may be influenced by the
presentation a team has to respond to. Full credit should be given to those teams that present
different, though fully appropriate, arguments and emphasize different issues.
In the oral hearings, in particular in the later rounds, arbitrators may inform the teams which
issues they should primarily focus on in their presentation, if they want to discuss certain issues
specifically. They should do so, if they want to make the indepth discussion of a particular issue
part of their evaluation.

The Facts
On 11 July 2014 Mr Fasttrack initiated arbitral proceedings with the Secretariat of the
International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for his client,
Vulcan Coltan Ltd (CLAIMANT), against Mediterraneo Mining SOE (RESPONDENT). At the same
time Mr Fastrack asked for an Emergency Measure pursuant to Article 29 ICCArbitration Rules
preventing RESPONDENT from disposing any of the 100 metric tons of coltan which are needed
to fulfil the contract with CLAIMANT.
CLAIMANT is a broker of rare minerals, in particular coltan, based in Equatoriana. It is a 100%
subsidiary of Global Minerals Ltd (Global Minerals), which brokers rare minerals worldwide
and is based in Ruritania. CLAIMANT has been created by its parent company especially to enter
the very difficult competitive market in Equatoriana. Equatoriana has a highly developed
electronics industry which is responsible for 10% of the Equatorianas GDP.
RESPONDENT is a stateowned enterprise based in Mediterraneo. It operates all the mines in
Mediterraneo including the only coltan mine. In addition to coltan RESPONDENT extracts copper
and gold.
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

Coltan is a mineral composed of columbite and tantalite. It is primarily used in the production of
the tantalum capacitors which are found in many electronic devices. The market conditions for
coltan are characterised by high volatility and instability. Times of oversupply are followed by
times where it is even difficult to get sufficient coltan at all, in particular conflict free coltan. In
the past, the volatility could be attributed to the release of major electronic innovations, like play
consoles and smartphone additions. Increasingly also political crises influence the price of
coltan. Some of the worlds larger coltan deposits are found in conflict areas. Like many of its
customers CLAIMANT is a Global Compact company. Therefore it only purchases conflict free
coltan which considerably limits its choice of suppliers.
On 23 March 2014 Mr Storm, the Chief Operating Officer of Global Minerals, and Mr Summer, the
Chief Operating Officer of CLAIMANT, approached Mr Winter, the general sales manager of
RESPONDENT, to enquire about a delivery of 100 metric tons of coltan to CLAIMANT. The
original proposal was that CLAIMANT would buy the coltan and get the same payment and
delivery conditions as Global Minerals. The offer was inacceptable to RESPONDENT. In light of
previous experiences with an insolvent subsidiary of Global Minerals in 2010, CLAIMANTs lack
of assets and the difficult market in Equatoriana, RESPONDENT wanted to either contract
directly with Global Minerals or at least some security for payment by them. In the end an
agreement was reached providing for the purchase of 30 metric tons by CLAIMANT for US$ 45
per kilogram. The contract, which listed CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT as buyer and seller, was
signed by them 28 March 2014 (Exhibit C 1). As requested by RESPONDENT, the contract was
Endorsed for Global Minerals by Mr. Storm who signed directly below the signatures of the
Parties. The parties did not discuss the exact legal nature of this endorsement. As was stated in
the witness statement of Winter (Exhibit R 1) RESPONDENT, while thinking that the
endorsement made Global Minerals at least a quasiparty [to the contract] responsible for the
payment, was not really concerned about the Global Minerals exact legal status due to the
existing other security for the price.
The price for the coltan was US$ 1,350,000 and was to be paid by an irrevocable letter of credit
to be established by the Buyer not later than fourteen days after the Buyer received the Notice
of Transport in regard to shipment. The Notice of Transport had to be given once the agreed
quantity of coltan became available for transport, but at the latest by 31 August 2014. During the
negotiation CLAIMANT made clear that it was interested in delivery at an earlier time.
The contract furthermore contained the following arbitration clause:

Art 20: Arbitration
All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally
settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by
three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules. The seat of arbitration
shall be Vindobona, Danubia, and the language of the arbitration will be English. The
contract, including this clause, shall be governed by the law of Danubia.
RESPONDENT send the Notice of Transport (Exhibit C 2) on Wednesday, 25 June 2014. In the
accompanying email (Exhibit C 3) RESPONDENT informed the CLAIMANT and Global Minerals
that one of its major customers had become insolvent and had defaulted on a purchase of coltan.
As a consequence RESPONDENT had 150 tons coltan available at short notice and could also
perform the contract with CLAIMANT earlier than originally anticipated.
On Friday, 27 June 2014 at 15:05 Ruritanian Standard Time (RST), Mr Storm sent a fax to
RESPONDENT offering to take delivery of 100 metric tons, on the terms which had been offered
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

for such an amount during the original negotiations (Exhibit C 4). CLAIMANT presented that
offer in its Request for Arbitration as a favour it wanted to do to RESPONDENT. According to
RESPONDENT, however, the background of this offer was probably privileged information about
the political situation in Xanadu which Mr Storm had most likely received from his brother, the
Ruritanian Ambassador in Xanadu. Xanadu is one of the major producers of conflict free coltan
and the Ambassador had been informed on Friday that the government would probably be
dissolved over the weekend (Exhibit R 3).
Due to the time difference of 5 hours between RST, relevant for Equatoriana and Ruritania, on
the one hand, and Mediterraneo Standard Time (MST) on the other hand, the fax only arrived
at 20:05 MST at RESPONDENTs office in Mediterraneo. By that time Mr Winter had already left
the company. He only read the fax the next Monday; at which point the news about the failure of
the government in Xanadu had spread and had led to nervous reactions on the market for Coltan
resulting finally in a moderate price increase of 1 US$ at the end of Monday (PO 2 para 30).
Mr Winter was very annoyed by the actions of CLAIMANT which in his view tried to take
advantage of privileged information to the detriment of its contractual partners. Consequently,
and in light of the changed market situation, he made clear to his own personnel that he had no
intention to accept the offer. Mr Winter did, however, not inform CLAIMANT officially of his
intention to reject the offer. As it turned out later during the proceedings the information about
the rejection of the offer had, however, been passed on by Mr Winters assistant Ms Masrov to Mr
Rthli a friend working at the time for CLAIMANT in a private telephone call (Exhibit R 2). Mr
Rthli, who had been fired directly after the telephone call, had not passed that information to
Mr Storm or any other person at CLAIMANT (PO 2 para 26).
After waiting for some days for an official reply to its offer CLAIMANT then asked Global
Minerals to instruct RST Trade Bank Ltd (Trade Bank), Global Minerals bank in Ruritania, to
issue a Letter of Credit. On 4 July 2014 at 10:00 Trade Bank faxed an irrevocable Letter of Credit
(145/2014) to RESPONDENT (Exhibit C 5). The original was then sent by courier. The unusual
way of issuing the Letter of Credit was in line with the parties agreement (PO 2 para 25). The
Letter of Credit was issued for US$ 4,500,000 relating to 100 metric tons of coltan. It allowed for
partial shipping and provided for payment against the following documents:
Transport Document (CIP Vulcan Coltan, 21 Magma Street, Oceanside, Equatoriana)

Packing List (Coltan not less than 30 metric tons per shipment)

Examination Certificate

By that time news had leaked out that the world largest producer of electronic game consoles,
which has a large manufacturing plant in Equatoriana, had developed a new game console. As a
consequence the price of coltan increased immediately by nearly 1US$/kg, as an increased
demand of coltan was expected.
About an hour later Mr Winter left a voicemail message on Mr Summers phone rejecting the
Letter of Credit provided as not conforming to the contractual requirements, which in his view
were still determined by the original contract of 28 March 2014. He asked for the correct Letter
of Credit to be provided immediately and threatened to terminate the contract, if no letter would
be received by Monday morning. Mr Storm, when being informed of the message by Mr Summer,
immediately emailed Mr Winter stating that the Letter of Credit was largely in line with the
changed contract (Exhibit C 6) with the exception of the delivery term which provided for CIP
CLAIMANTs address. That could be changed to CIF Oceanside and that CLAIMANT would then
expect delivery within the next 2 months.
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

On 7 July 2014, RESPONDENT replied by sending a letter declaring avoidance of the contract of
28 March 2014 (Exhibit C 7). Irrespective of that CLAIMANT had Trade Bank issue a new letter
of credit the following day allegedly complying with the terms of the original contract.
CLAIMANT made clear that it was still of the view that the contract had been validly changed and
that the letter was primarily issued as a precautionary measure, to ensure at least a delivery of
the 30 metric tons agreed under the original contract which CLAIMANT had already sold on to its
customers (Exhibit C 10).
Trade Bank sent the new Letter of Credit (Exhibit C 8) over US$ 1,350,000 by 24 hours courier
on 8 July 2014 (Exhibit C 9) to RESPONDENT. In addition, Global Minerals faxed the Letter of
Credit to RESPONDENT on 8 July 2014 to ensure that the deadline was adhered to. The fax was
sent at 17.42 RST, which meant 22.42 MST (Exhibit C 10). It was only read by Mr Winter the next
morning. By that time he had already received the original of the Letter of Credit. Working late,
he had been called by the night porter shortly after midnight MST, which was 19.05 RST, when
the courier had arrived with the original Letter of Credit.
Mr Winter replied directly on 9 July 2014 (Exhibit R 4). He made clear that RESPONDENT
considered the contract terminated by its letter of 7 July 2014, returned the second letter of
credit and made clear that RESPONDENT would not deliver any coltan. Furthermore, as a purely
precautionary measure Mr Winter declared the contract once more terminated. In his view,
the second letter of credit had been delivered too late and was not conforming to the
requirements asking for the presentation of a commercial invoice for any payment, which had
not been a condition under the first letter.
That refusal to deliver resulted in CLAIMANTs Request for Arbitration as well as its application
for emergency measures. In the main proceedings CLAIMANT originally made the following
request in relation to the delivery of the coltan:

1)a) order RESPONDENT to deliver to CLAIMANT immediately after the issuance of an
award 100 metric tons of coltan as required by the provisions of the contract as
amended by Global Minerals fax of 27 June 2014;
in the alternative to
b)

order RESPONDENT to deliver to CLAIMANT immediately after the issuance of an

award 30 metric tons of coltan as required by the provisions of the contract
concluded between CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT on 28 March 2014.

From the Emergency Arbitrator CLAIMANT requested the following two orders in relation to
coltan.
1) a)
order RESPONDENT to refrain from disposing of any of the 100 metric tons of
coltan
which are needed to fulfil the contract with CLAIMANT in line with the
provisions of
the contract as amended by Global Minerals fax of 27 June 2014;
in the alternative to
b)

order RESPONDENT from disposing of any of the 30 metric tons of coltan which
are needed to fulfil the contract with CLAIMANT in line with the provisions of the
contract concluded between CLAIMANT and RESPONDET on 28 March 2014

AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

RESPONDENT objected to the jurisdiction of the Emergency Arbitrator, as in its view the parties
had implicitly excluded the application of Article 29 ICCRules in their contract by regulating
interim relief in Article 21.
Moreover, RESPONDENT considered neither the emergency measures requested nor the
requests in the main proceedings to be justified as in its view it had rightfully avoided the
contract.
On 26 July 2014 the Emergency Arbitrator appointed by the ICC, Ms Chin Hu, rendered the
following decision:
1. The Application is admissible pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Rules and the Emergency
Arbitrator has jurisdiction to order the emergency measures sought by the Applicant.
2. Responding party is to refrain from disposing of any of the 100 metric tons of coltan
which are needed to fulfil the contract with CLAIMANT in line with the provisions of the
contract as amended by Global Minerals fax of 27 June 2014
3. Responding party shall bear the costs of the Emergency Arbitrator proceedings and shall
consequently reimburse the Applicant the amount of US$ 40 000.
On 8 August 2014, RESPONDENT in its Answer to the Request for Arbitration requested
rejection of CLAIMANTs main requests as well as the lifting of the order of the Emergency
Arbitrator. Furthermore, RESPONDENT requested the joinder of Global Minerals to the arbitral
proceedings as an additional party and brought a counterclaim for damages resulting from the
order of the Emergency Arbitrator.
CLAIMANT and Global Minerals objected to the inclusion of the latter as an Additional Party into
to arbitral proceedings as Global Mineral was in their view not a party to the underlying sales
contract. At the same time, Global Mineral accepted the arbitrators appointed until then.
Moreover, following the additional information from the witness statement of Ms Masrov that
she informed Mr Rthli about RESPONDENTs unwillingness to accept the new offer, CLAIMANT
amended its prayers for relief. Without formally acknowledging that RESPONDENT validly
rejected the offer of 27 June 2014, CLAIMANT as a sign of goodwill does not pursue its does not
pursue its claim for an order for 100 metric tons (claim 1a) any further. Instead it reduces it
claims to an order for the delivery of 30 metric tons as originally agreed in the contract and
requested as claim 1b. Equally the CLAIMANT agreed that the order of the Emergency
Arbitrator could be changed accordingly, i.e. limiting the amount to be kept at 30 metric tons
(Answer to Counterclaim and Joinder, para. 4)
The Tribunal decided to bifurcate the proceedings for reasons of procedural economy, after
establishing with the parties the Terms of Reference for the complete proceedings. In the first
part of the proceedings, which are the object of this Moot the parties should concentrate on

the questions of jurisdiction over the Additional Party,

the claims for performance raised by the CLAIMANT
the lifting of the remaining part of the order of the emergency arbitrator

By contrast the merits of RESPONDENTs counterclaims would be determined in the second

phase of the arbitration, which is not part of this Moot.

The Issues

AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

The issues before the Tribunal, and therefore at issue in the Moot, are set forth in Procedural
Order No.1, paragraph 5 (p 60 et seq). That paragraph of the Procedural Order states in its
relevant part that
a. Has RESPONDENT rightfully avoided the contract of 28 March 2014 by its
declarations of avoidance of
i. 7 July 2014 or
ii. 9 July 2014 ?
b. Should the Arbitral Tribunal lift the remaining part of the order made by the
Emergency Arbitrator against RESPONDENT on 26 July 2014?
c. Does the Arbitral Tribunal have jurisdiction over the Additional Party, i.e. Global
Minerals?

No further questions going to the merits of the claims should be addressed.

General Considerations
The case includes a number of problems encountered frequently in international business
transactions. Not all of them are in the end relevant for the solution of the case and will have to
be discussed in detail in the written submissions or the oral pleadings. In part that only becomes
obvious once the students have understood the relevant instruments such as the letter of credit
and the content of the various INCOTERMS used. Some of the mistakes (e.g. reference to the
wrong INCOTERMS CIP in Notice of Transportation; overlooked discrepancy in second letter of
credit commercial invoice) or the not completely accurate presentation of the facts in the
submissions (CLAIMANT not clearly distinguishing between its own relationship with
RESPONDENT and that of the parent company) are included by purpose to make the students
think and give room for discussions.
The broad topics to be discussed by the students are the following:
1) In relation to arbitration:
a. Interim Relief by the Emergency Arbitrator under the ICCRules
b. Extension of the arbitration agreement to nonsignatories under the group of
companies doctrine and under good faith
2) In relations to the CISG:
a. Fundamental breach in case of commodity trade
b. Calculating time in international trade
There are several ways to structure the submissions and presentations. Procedural Order No 1 left it to
the parties to decide in which order they address the various issues. The particularities of the present
case could justify to answer the questions in the order asked and to deviate from the normal order that
first procedural issues are discussed. That is due to the fact that Global Minerals was only joined after
the order of the Emergency Arbitrator had already been issued and for the sole purpose of having a
solvent debtor should the counterclaim succeed. Until the joinder the proceedings including the whole
Emergency Arbitrator proceedings were only conducted between CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT.
Furthermore, also the substantive issues to be discussed in this part of the arbitration largely only
concern CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT.

AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

Arbitration Questions:
I. Joinder of Global Minerals: Procedural Order No 1- #5(c)
1. Background
The question of joining Global Minerals as an additional party pursuant to Article 7 ICCRules
concerns the scope of the arbitration agreement and its extension to third parties. In accordance
with its Rules the ICC has listed Global Mineral as an Additional Party being prima facie satisfied
that an arbitration agreement may exist which binds Global Minerals. The actual decision about
whether that is actually the case is left to the tribunal.
The two doctrines upon which RESPONDENT relies to support its request for extending the
arbitration agreement are group of companies and good faith. The materials contain only
limited information about the recognition of the doctrines and their requirements in the various
jurisdictions involved (Answer to Counterclaim para. 7; PO 2 paras 46, 47). Consequently, the
discussion will in principle involve a balancing exercise between the various factors speaking for
an inclusion and the factors speaking against an extension of the agreement. There are sufficient
arguments for both sides in the facts given the strong involvement of Global Minerals (via Mr
Storm) in the negotiation and the performance of the contract on the one hand and the
contractual provisions and negotiations on the other hand, showing that, at least legally, Global
Minerals did not want to become a party to the contract. There is abundant case law about
factors which may or may not be relevant for such an extension. While there is at least one case
dealing with an endorsement, in the end, the decision is solely dependent on the particular
circumstances of this case and the parties intentions and understanding.

2. Extension to Global Minerals

RESPONDENT wants to join Global Minerals to the arbitration to have a solvent debtor to
ensure that [its] counterclaim and its claim for costs are not frustrated in case RESPONDENT is
successful with its claims. In its view Global Minerals is subject to the arbitration clause due to its
signature under the contract containing the clause and its role in the negotiation and fulfilment
of the contract. As confirmed by Mr Winters witness statement due to CLAIMANTs limited
financial resources and previous bad experiences, RESPONDENT always required the
involvement of Global Minerals during the negotiation. That was the background for the
endorsement of the contract by Global Minerals (Exhibit R 1).
In light of the negotiation and the wording of the contract, which only mentions CLAIMANT and
RESPONDENT as buyer and seller and the special form of the signature (not as a buyer/seller but
endorsing the contract), it is very difficult to argue that Global Minerals was a normal party to
the contract. It is, however, not impossible. Pursuant to Article 4 of the contract the buyer had to
establish a Letter of Credit. It was always clear that Global Minerals would organize the credit
and the letters provided have been issued for the account of Global Minerals (Exhibits C 5; C 8).
At the same time RESPONDENT send most of its correspondence concerning the contract to both
parties and also on the buyers side correspondence was regularly conducted by Mr Storm of
Global Minerals and not by CLAIMANT (e.g. Exhibits C 4; C 6).
In light of the above difficulties, RESPONDENTs primary arguments for the inclusion are the
group of companies doctrine and good faith considerations, where all the above mentioned
factors may also become relevant. In a real arbitration the first issue to be discussed would be
which law governs the extension of the arbitration agreement to Global Minerals under the two
doctrines. In light of the complex questions of characterisation involved (procedural or
contractual nature of the theories), and the divergent approaches in different jurisdictions (law
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

applicable to the arbitration agreement/ law governing the group) the problem is drafted in a
way that the students could leave that question open and did not have to address it explicitly.
There was so little information provided about the content of the different laws that a detailed
discussion was not triggered or even necessary due to existing differences between the various
law. The very good teams would at least flag the conflict of laws problem and probably argue in
favour of an application of Danubian law, at least for the group of companies doctrine.
The limited information available also made it very difficult for the students to define exactly the
content of the two doctrines. For the group of companies doctrine at least some indications were
given. The file contains an explicit reference to an endorsement by a Ruritanian Court of the
famous ICCaward in Dow Chemical (Answer to Counterclaim and Joinder, para. 7) which is
general considered to be the starting point for the group of companies doctrine. For the good
faith doctrine the students had to rely largely on the different factors mentioned in court
decisions or the literature for the concept in general without having the benefit of a specific case.
Some guidance could be drawn from the provision of Ruritanian Contract Law which adopted
verbatim Article 1.7 UNIDROIT Principles. In both cases the question arose, however, whether
the Ruritanian law played a role at all.
In connection with the group of companies doctrine factors which would speak for an inclusion
are the strong role Mr Storm as representative for Global Minerals played in the negotiation and
implementation of the contract, that RESPONDENT insisted on a role of Global Minerals, that the
Letter of Credit was provided by Global Minerals and that CLAIMANT in its correspondence often
did not clearly distinguish between CLAIMANT and Global Minerals. Whether these connections
are sufficient to overcome the factors which speak against applying the doctrine is open to
discussion. Speaking against the inclusion of Global Minerals are that CLAIMANT was created as
a special purpose vehicle distinct from Global Minerals primarily for the purpose of shielding the
latter from becoming party to contracts with relation to Equatoriana, that Global Minerals made
clear during the discussions that it did not want to become a party, that the contract only
mentions CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT as seller and buyer, that Mr Storm in some of his
communications was making clear that he was acting for CLAIMANT and not Global Minerals and
that it was always clear to RESPONDENT that only CLAIMANT would be a party to the contract
and its arbitration agreement and not Global Minerals. Teams which had determined that the
inclusion of Global Minerals under the group of companies doctrine would be governed by
Danubian law might also have discussed whether the doctrine is recognized at all under
Danubian law. There are some statements to the contrary in the literature which have been
picked up by the Claimant side. There are, however, no court decisions as to this issues it and the
conclusion drawn from the Supreme Courts emphasis on party autonomy is not compelling. The
doctrine of groups of company unlike good faith is often considered to be based on an implied
consent.
The thrust of RESPONDENTs good faith argument is that Global Minerals by its behaviour and in
particular the endorsement of the contract created the impression that it would stand behind
the contract, inducing RESPONDENT to sign it (RESPONDENTs Answer to the Request, para.
28). On the one hand the witness statement of Mr Winter shows that it was crucial for
RESPONDENT to have the financial backing of Global Minerals for the contract. At the same time
RESPONDENT stated, however, that the exact legal consequences associated with the
endorsement of the contract by Global Minerals were not of greater relevance as at least the
payment of the contract price was largely secured by a letter of credit.

II. Emergency Arbitrator: Procedural Order No 1- #5(b)

AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

The question relating to the withdrawal of the emergency measure issued is in the present case
of hybrid nature. While it could be considered to form part of the tribunals decision on the
merits, forming also the basis of the counterclaim in case of lifting the decision, it involves
primarily procedural questions concerning the institution of an emergency arbitrator. The ICC,
like many other institutions, has since the last revision of its arbitration rules special provisions
for arbitral interim relief at the time before the tribunal has been appointed. Parties no longer
have to opt into that mechanism but must opt out if they do not want to submit to the emergency
arbitrator.

1. Jurisdiction
RESPONDENT is of the view that the parties implicitly agreed to exclude the provisions on
emergency relief by the regulation in Article 21 which provides
Art 21: Provisional measures
The courts at the place of business of the party against which provisional measures are sought
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to grant such measures.

The wording of the clause is not clear. The reference to exclusive jurisdiction can be used by
both parties, in particular if one takes into account the drafting history of the provision. One can
understand exclusive as referring merely to the distribution of the jurisdictions between the
courts. That is the interpretation adopted by the emergency arbitrator in her decision (Order of
Emergency Arbitrator para 9).
One can, however, also interpret it to refer to arbitral interim relief as well. In favor of that
position one could the contra proferentem rule might also be invoked. Article 21 was originally
drafted for the Global Minerals side and included upon their request into the subsequent
contracts. (PO 2 para 13)
The later argument is probably more difficult to make. The provision was included at a time
when the ICC Rules did not yet contain Article 29. Thus, there was no need to exclude emergency
arbitration so that it is doubtful whether the exclusion was meant that way.
Another argument in this context could be that the arbitration clause was used in that form in
contracts since 2010(PO 2 para. 10). At that time it did not result in granting a competence to the
emergency arbitrator so that the idea underlying Article 29 (6)(a) ICCRules might apply. The
argument is weakened by the fact that the parties were aware of the changes in the ICCRules at
the time when they entered into the contract in question (PO 2 para. 14).
In the one reported ICC case where the issue of exclusion was raised it was rejected.

2. Measures granted.
The ICC rules are largely silent as to the substantive requirements for the grant of emergency
measures. In her decision the Emergency Arbitrator relied on internationally accepted
principles of arbitral interim relief which are also the basis for Art. 17A of the Danubian
Arbitration Law (Order of Emergency Arbitrator para 11). Thus, she examined whether
CLAIMANT had a good arguable case on the merits and whether without the measure requested
a future decision on the merits would be frustrated. There was also some sort of common
understanding by the parties that an arguable case on the merits would be one of the
requirements (PO 2 para. 32).
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

The reliance on Art. 17A of the Danubian Arbitration Law by the Emergency Arbitrator is the
most obvious solution but by no means compelling. Art. 17A deals directly only with interim
relief by an arbitral tribunal not by the emergency arbitrator and one could also try to argue that
the absence of any specific criteria in Article 29 ICCRules going beyond the urgency requirement
in Article 29(1) gives Emergency Arbitrator wide discretion.
Whether the requirements were met at the time of granting the order and are still met at the
time when the tribunal makes its decision is an open question and requires argumentation by
the students. Facts which may play a role are the market structure and development,
CLAIMANTs need to supply its customers, the time passed since the order and subsequent
developments in Xanadu as well as the likelihood to receive coltan from other suppliers.

CISG Issues: Procedural Order No 1- #5(a)

I.

Background

The substantive part has as its broad topic the issue of what constitutes a fundamental breach
under the CISG in the field of commodity trade. In light of fluctuating markets strict compliance
with time limits, specifications and documents to be provided is of considerable importance in
that area of trade and also has a bearing on what deviations constitute a fundamental breach.
The uncertainties surrounding that concept and its suitability for the commodity trade is one of
the reasons why most standard contracts in that area of trade exclude the CISG. It is also one of
the main arguments against the suitability of the CISG for commodity trade.
The main issues to be discussed are the calculation of time limits (starting / relevant time zone),
the importance of deviations in delivery terms (CIF and CIP) as well as the importance of the
documents to be presented for a drawing under the letter of credit. To allow discussions of these
topics the letter of credit is issued in a very unusual way which allows, however, for additional
arguments concerning what is actually required by the contract. A good understanding of the law
of letters of credit as well of the INCOTERMS is required for the discussion.

II.

Question a (i):

Has RESPONDENT rightfully avoided the contract of 28 March 2014 by its

declaration of avoidance of 7 July 2014?
Following receipt of the first letter of credit on 4 July 2014 and Mr Storms email of 5 July 2014
reacting the Mr Winters complaint from the day before, RESPONDENT declared avoidance of the
sales contract for the first time on 7 July 2014. RESPONDENT justified that avoidance with the
fact that the letter of credit did not conform to the requirements of the original contract
concluded on 28 March 2014. Mr Winter particularly criticized that the letter is for 100 metric
tons of coltan instead of 30 metric tons and that it contains different delivery terms. He then
went on to state that [i]n trading commodities such as coltan any deviation from the contract is
considered to be a fundamental breach of contract (Exhibit C 7).
Whether that statement is true is one of the main issues to be discussed by the parties. It is
beyond doubt that in commodity trade as well as in letter of credit law strict compliance with
requirements is of highest importance. The question arises, however, whether that also applies
for the deviations in the present case. On the one hand the letter of credit is primarily a security
provided by the buyer for the fulfilment of its payment obligation through the involvement of a
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

10

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

solvent third party. On the other hand this involvement of a third requires at least for all issues
concerning the drawing under the letter strict compliance with the requirements.
The first letter of credit, deviates in several aspects from the provisions of the original contract.
It was

over a higher quantity and a higher amount,

provided for a later lastshipmentdate and
for a slightly different delivery term (CIF/CIP).

The deviations are connected to CLAIMANTs efforts to amend the contract to cover a higher
quantity by its offer of 27 June 2014 (Exhibit C 4). In light of the witness statement by Ms
Masrov, stating that CLAIMANTs Mr Rthli had been informed about RESPONDENTs rejection
of the offer, it is very hard to argue that there was actually an amendment of the contract.
CLAIMANT seems to have given up that position but the facts are not unequivocal in this respect
and do not completely exclude such an argumentation.
The deviations of the letter of credit from the original contract are mainly in favor of
RESPONDENT. At a closer look and taking letter of credit law into account the higher amount and
the higher quantity required do not prevent RESPONDENT from drawing under the letter of
credit. The allowance of partial shipment and partial drawings make it possible to ship only 30
metric tons as agreed and receive 30% of the payment.
That is different, however, for the delivery terms. While the letter of credit provided for CIP
Vulcan Coltan, 21 Magma Street, Oceanside, Equatoriana, the contract foresaw CIF
(INCOTERMS 2010) Oceanside, Equatoriana, though the ICC suggests not to use CIF for container
sales. For their arguments students have to understand the differences between the two terms
and how these additional duties affect one side. The price for the additional transport needed in
Equatoriana costs between USD 800 1000 (PO 2 para 36). In this context it may be relevant,
either arguing the fundamentality of the breach or even invoking Article 80 CISG, that
RESPONDENT in its Notice of Transport mixed up the two INCOTERMS itself and ticked the CIP
box instead of the CIF box. Some teams may even argue that the Notice of Transport constituted
an offer to amend the contract to a CIP contract which was then accepted through the issuance of
the letter of credit. That seems to be a little bit far fetched and ignores that the letter also
deviates in some other respects from the original contract.
In the end it has to be discussed by the parties whether all the above mentioned deviations taken
together constitute a fundamental breach due to the particularities of the commodity trade. In
this context the question of foreseeability plays a role, albeit a limited one. If one considers that
the particularities of the commodity trade require strict compliance with contractual provisions
the same reasoning would lead to the foreseeability of the fundamental character of the breach.
Some teams may also try to rely on Article 64 (1)(b) CISG. In the message left on Mr Summers
voicemail Mr Winter asked for a new letter of credit. The exact wording was Please provide a
new conforming letter immediately, at the latest by Monday morning our time. Otherwise we
will terminate the contract (PO 2 para.21). If the argument is raised the teams have to discuss
whether that was really intended to be a Nachfrist and whether that time limit was reasonable.
For the latter question it may be relevant, that even under the most restrictive reading of the
time limit in the contract, CLAIMANT had time until 8 July 2014 to provide a letter of credit so
that a time limit which expires before that time may not be reasonable.
The avoidance of the contract before the time for providing a letter of credit has expired may
also raise additional questions. Teams may lead the whole discussion as one relating to an
anticipatory breach under Article 72. Others may raise the question as to a possible cure of the
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

11

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

deficiencies through the second letter of credit. Those are all valid approaches though the
present analysis based on Respondents allegation that the Claimant through the provision of
the first letter of credit has fixed the time for performance has approached the problem under
Article 64 CISG.

III.

Question a (ii):

Has RESPONDENT rightfully avoided the contract of 28 March 2014 by its

declaration of avoidance of 9 July 2014?
On 9 July 2014 RESPONDENT declared a second time that it wanted to avoid the contract for
fundamental breach of contract (Exhibit R 4). That declaration was primarily a precautionary
measure as RESPONDENT considered the contract already terminated by the declaration of 7
July 2014. The reasons for that renewed avoidance were the allegedly belated provision of the
second letter of credit as well as the additional document required. Both issues constituted in
RESPONDENTs view constituted a fundamental breach of the contract.

1.

Belated provision of the letter of credit

In its Answer to the Request for Arbitration RESPONDENT gave two different reasons of why in
its view the letter of credit was provided too late. The first argument was that by
sending the first Letter of Credit CLAIMANT and Global Minerals had exercised their
right to determine the exact date of performance within the period given. From that time
onwards the time for performance was fixed and all subsequent performance was out of
time
The second argument was that the letter did
only arrive at RESPONDENTs premises on 9 July 2014 and not as required on 8 July
2014
In relation to this argument the first issue to be determined is what is required under the
contract. In the pertinent part of Article 4 the parties have agreed as follows:

Art 4: Payment & Letter of Credit
A Letter of Credit in the amount of US$ 1,350,000 shall be established by the Buyer not later than
fourteen days after the Buyer received the notice of transport in regard to shipment.

It can be argued that the mere consent of the bank to issue a letter of credit is sufficient to meet
the requirements of Article 4. The wording of Article 4 only refers to establishing a letter of
credit and not to providing the other party with it. However, the unusual way of informing the
other side about the letter of credit the considerable efforts made by CLAIMANT to send the
letter of credit to RESPONDENT on the 8th July could be taken as indications that the seller had to
be informed about the provision of the letter of credit within the mentioned time. In interpreting
Article 4 of the contract, Article 8 CISG requires taking into account all circumstances, including
the subsequent behavior of the parties.
In case the seller had to be informed about the provision of the letter of credit the question
arises, how to calculate the relevant time limit of fourteen days after the Buyer received the
AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

12

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

ArbitratorsBrief

Notice of Transport. Under numerous arbitration rules the day at which the triggering event
occurred is not counted for the calculation but the time only starts to run the next day. The CISG
does not address the issue directly. It contains, however, in Article 20 a rule for calculating a
period of time for acceptance fixed by the offeror. According to that rule the time starts to run
immediately after the occurrences of the triggering event. The rule is considered to enshrine one
of the general principles underlying the CISG. There are conflicting rules in the national laws of
the
In the present context the better argument seems to be the one based on the CISG since the issue
is one of substantive law and not one of procedural law. In that case the relevant period expired
on the 8 July 2014. That leads to the additional questions of whether, first, the sending of the fax
is or its receipt relevant and, second, which time zone is relevant to determine the expiry of the
time limit.
RESPONDENT, arguing that the fax only arrived on 9 July and not on 8 July gave the following
reasons for its view in para 34 of its Reply to the Request for Arbitration
The fax was sent outside RESPONDENTs the ordinary business hours and was only
discovered on 9 July 2014. Therefore, it cannot be considered to have arrived in time. It is
not the time of sending but the time of receipt which is relevant in this regard.
Consequently, it is also not the time zone of the party performing the contract which is
relevant, i.e. RST applicable in Ruritania and Equatoriana, but the zone where the
obligation is to be performed, i.e. MST relevant in Mediterraneo, which is five hours
ahead.
CLAIMANT by contrast considered the time zone of the sender to be relevant for determining the
expiry of the time limit (Request for Arbitration para. 20).

2.

Additional requirement of a commercial invoice

The second ground mentioned by RESPONDENT for its avoidance is that unlike the first letter of
credit the second letter required as an additional document for presentation the provision of a
commercial invoice. Again the first question to be answered, applying Article 8 CISG, is what the
contract requires for the presentation. Article 4 is largely silent on the question. It reads in its
pertinent part:
Art 4: Payment & Letter of Credit

The letter of credit shall be in favour of the Seller or its designee, be acceptable in content to
Seller, be consistent with the terms of this Contract, be irrevocable and issued at a first class bank
of Ruritania, be valid until 15 December 2014. The Letter of Credit is subject to the Uniform
Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits published by the International Chamber of
Commerce (UCP 600).
Payment is due 30 days after presentation of the documents under the Letter of Credit.

Thus one would have to look for other guidance either under Article 8 (3) or Article 9 CISG. The
information provided is very limited and students may try to argue with the role of commercial
invoices in such transaction as well as the wording of the first letter of credit.
The outcome of this interpretation determines whether the requirement of a commercial invoice
constitutes a breach or not.

AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

13

22ndWillemCVisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot

3.

ArbitratorsBrief

Fundamental nature of breach

In case the letter of credit has either been established too late or is considered to be non
conforming the question arises again whether that breach can be considered to constitute a
fundamental breach in the sense of Article 64(1)(b) CISG. Again the question turns on how much
weight is given to the particularities of the commodity trade.

4.

Article 64 (2)

Teams may additionally argue that the right to avoid the contract is excluded due to the
provision of the second letter of credit before avoidance has been declared. In making that
argument teams should be aware that Article 64 (2) requires that the buyer has paid the price
while the provision of a letter of credit is not payment but provision of a payment security. It
should at least be discussed whether the provision can also be applied to the provision of a letter
of credit.

AssociationfortheorganisationandpromotionoftheWillemC.VisInternationalCommercialArbitrationMoot/ProfDrStefanKrll

14